The Cost Savings of Steam Today.

[NW Mailing List]

John,

I glanced through your paper to see how you had addressed the volatility in coal pricing and assumptions about type of coal used to achieve a desired BTU.  Not very much information was reaadily apparent other than a reference to EIA forecasts which I looked at and saw oil and coal price trends were expected to stay the same.  That leaves me with a number of questions since the paper is about economic analysis of alternative fuels.  Besides which various other respondents are addressing the operational and engineering factors.

1) Are you using mine face pricing or delivered pricing. I calculated you were using about $41.50 per ton of coal which I assume is delivered price?
2) Given different coal types produce different BTUs do you consider the price difference in type of coal you use? (For the week ending Jan 4 2008 the variability in pricing was $58/ton for 12,500 BTU coal from Applachia to $11.60/ton for 8,800 BTU coal from Powder River.  That is a 5 to 1 pricing difference for type of coal.)
3) What is the variability in transportation cost for railroads located near and far from the mine face?
4) How would a 6.2% increase in coal production requirement affect the coal price and therefore affect your conclusion? (THis comes back to the type of BTU you want.)
5) How would successful coal gasification affect the price of coal (increased consumption) and oil (reduced consumption)? 

Alex Schust 

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: NW Mailing List 
  To: NW Mailing List 
  Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 10:38 AM
  Subject: Re: The Cost Savings of Steam Today.


  Ed,

  Great question.  I don't know if you have read the paper, it is in there.  But basically the combustion/firebox design gasifies the coal to a combination of hydrogen, methane and carbon monoxide.  This gas blend is burned completely above the firebed with no smoke and virtually no particle carryover.  This is the simple version.  Also coal fired power plants are not belching smoke anymore either. 

  Good question, keep em coming,

  John


  On Jan 10, 2008 7:11 PM, NW Mailing List <nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org> wrote:

    John - good for you and I would also like to see the paper.  
     
    How do you address the emissions issue?  When we look at those old photos of J's and A's and Y-6B's there is a whole lot of smoke that was certainly OK in the 50's but today would possibly be looked at more critically by some. 
     
    Anything that reduces our dependance on foreign oil would be a big plus in my book.
     
    Thanks very much for your email!
     
    Ed Svitil






------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  ________________________________________
  NW-Mailing-List at nwhs.org
  To change your subscription go to
  http://list.nwhs.org/mailman/options/nw-mailing-list
  Browse the NW-Mailing-List archives at
  http://list.nwhs.org/pipermail/nw-mailing-list/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://six.pairlist.net/pipermail/nw-mailing-list/attachments/20080112/262b5612/attachment-0001.html>